Perspective: Young Workers at Higher Risk for Carcinogen Exposures.

Young workers, those under the age of 25, are considered a vulnerable working population, primarily due to their increased risk of injury. In this study we investigate if young workers may also be at an increased risk for occupational exposure to carcinogens. Using the 2006 and 2016 Canadian Census of Population and previously obtained CAREX Canada data, this study aimed to identify sectors and occupations that have high proportions of young workers and where potential exists for exposure to known and suspected carcinogens. Key groups where young workers are likely at a higher risk for occupational exposure to carcinogens were identified. Our work shows that young workers in construction, outdoor occupations, and farming are key groups that warrant further investigation. These specific groups are highlighted because of the large number of young workers employed in these sectors/situations, the high number of possible carcinogen exposures, and the potential for higher risk behavior patterns that typically occur in these types of jobs. While there is no data available to develop carcinogen exposure estimates specific to young workers, it is our perspective that young workers are likely at a higher risk for occupational exposure to carcinogens. Our findings identify opportunities to improve the occupational health and safety for this vulnerable population, particularly for young construction workers, farm workers, and outdoor workers.

Screening-level assessment of cancer risk associated with ambient air exposure in Aamjiwnaang First Nation.

The manuscript reports findings from a screening-level assessment of cancer risk from outdoor air in Aamjiwnaang First Nation. Ambient air pollution can contribute to cardiovascular/respiratory diseases, and certain types of cancer. Certain communities may be at higher risk to the negative health impacts due to their geographical proximity to pollution sources. Outdoor air concentrations were mapped and the Lifetime Excess Cancer Risks (LECR) associated with long-term exposure to known carcinogens were estimated. LECR results for both benzene and 1,3-butadiene were above one per million. The LECR for benzene was 6.4 per million when the Health Canada slope factor was applied and 12.0 when using the US EPA. For 1,3-butadiene the LECR estimate was 8.8 per million. This work provides a better understanding of environmental exposures and potential associated cancer risks for residents in the Aamjiwnaang community and highlights the need for further air monitoring and a more detailed risk assessment.

Cancer and the Environment projects with four First Nations organizations: working together to address concerns about carcinogens in the environment.

SETTING: For First Nations people, human health and well-being are interconnected with a healthy environment. First Nations organizations commonly raise concerns regarding carcinogens in the environment; however, few case studies are available as guidance for working in a participatory and respectful way to help assess and address these concerns. INTERVENTION: Through four community-led pilot projects executed over two years, we collaborated with 15 participants from four First Nations organizations across four provinces to identify concerns related to environmental carcinogens and to address those concerns through an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach. We co-developed and implemented strategic KT plans for each pilot project, and conducted evaluation surveys and interviews with participants at multiple time points to assess process, progress, barriers and facilitators, and impact. OUTCOMES: The activities and outputs of the pilot projects are available at www.carexcanada.ca . Participants identified 18 concerns, and we co-developed 24 knowledge products. Tailored fact sheets for communities and briefing notes for leadership were deemed most useful; interactive maps were deemed less useful. Evaluation indicated that the collaborative projects were effective in addressing the concerns raised regarding exposures to carcinogens. IMPLICATIONS: The participant-led approach and multi-year funding to support capacity enhancement and face-to-face engagement were facilitators to project success. However, participants did face important barriers to collaborate which should be considered in future projects of this kind: the most important being a lack of resources (people and time), given competing and often more urgent priorities.

RéSUMé: LIEU: Pour les Premiers Peuples, la santé et le bien-être humains sont indissociables de la santé de l'environnement. Les organismes des Premières Nations se disent souvent préoccupés par les cancérogènes présents dans l'environnement, mais peu d'études de cas sont disponibles pour apprendre à travailler de façon participative et respectueuse à évaluer ces préoccupations et à y répondre. INTERVENTION: Dans le cadre de quatre projets pilotes de proximité menés sur une période de deux ans, nous avons collaboré avec 15 participants, issus de quatre organismes des Premières Nations dans quatre provinces, à cerner leurs préoccupations liées aux cancérogènes dans l'environnement et à y répondre selon une démarche intégrée d'application des connaissances. Nous avons conjointement élaboré et mis en œuvre des plans stratégiques d'application des connaissances pour chaque projet pilote et mené des sondages d'évaluation et des entretiens avec les participants à plusieurs reprises pour évaluer le processus, les progrès accomplis, les éléments favorables et défavorables et les impacts des projets. RéSULTATS: Les activités et les extrants des projets pilotes sont présentés sur le site www.carexcanada.ca . Les participants ont exprimé 18 motifs de préoccupation, et nous avons élaboré avec eux 24 produits du savoir. Les fiches d'information adaptées à chaque communauté et les notes d'information pour les dirigeants ont été jugées très utiles, mais les cartes interactives un peu moins. Selon l'évaluation, les projets collaboratifs ont réussi à répondre aux préoccupations soulevées quant à l'exposition aux cancérogènes. CONSéQUENCES: La démarche axée sur les participants et le financement pluriannuel consacré au renforcement des capacités et aux contacts directs ont été des éléments favorables à la réussite des projets. Par contre, les participants ont fait face à d'importants obstacles à la collaboration dont il faudrait tenir compte dans les futurs projets de la sorte, le principal obstacle étant le manque de ressources (personnes et temps), étant donné l'existence de priorités concurrentes et souvent plus urgentes.

Barriers and facilitators for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Antineoplastic drugs are widely used in the treatment of cancer. However, some are known carcinogens and reproductive toxins, and incidental low-level exposure to workers is a health concern. CAREX Canada estimated that approximately 75,000 Canadians are exposed to antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. While policies and guidelines on safe handling of antineoplastic drugs are available, evidence suggests that compliance is low. In this paper, we identify barriers and facilitators for safe handling of antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. METHODS: We utilized a unique method to study public policy which involved compiling policy levers, developing a logic model, conducting a literature review, and contextualizing data through a deliberative process with stakeholders to explore in-depth contextual factors and experiences for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. RESULTS: The most common barriers identified in the literature were: poor training (46%), poor safety culture (41%), and inconsistent policies (36%). The most common facilitators were: adequate safety training (41%), leadership support (23%), and consistent policies (21%). Several of these factors are intertwined and while this means one barrier can cause other barriers, it also allows healthcare employers to mitigate these barriers by implementing small but meaningful changes in the workplace. CONCLUSION: The combination of barriers and facilitators identified in our review highlight the importance of creating work environments where safety is a priority for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. The results of this study will assist policy makers and managers in identifying gaps and enhancing strategies that reduce occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs.

Priority Setting for Occupational Cancer Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Selecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles. METHODS: Four criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1) the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2) toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects); (3) feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4) special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority), and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority). CONCLUSION: Prioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts.